|
_ . - �. - .-- - _ ; _
<br />� _ - - - � = -- - -- �. . .�.� _ 1. � -- - - --- - - - - . _------ 3 .- - �..,�.._. . .
<br />Mounds View Planning Commission
<br />Regular Meeting
<br />March 1, 2000
<br />Page 7
<br />to issue the permit. He explained that MnDOT does not have the dtscr�ior► to t��ice their
<br />,,.
<br />decision based upon the number of requests submitted, as long as;they are in ���r���liance with the
<br />local Code and State Law. He stated it was his understandmg L�iat;as long �?5 t:lt�; si�ns have met
<br />MnDOT's 500-foot spacing requirement, they would be appro��x'l�" `
<br />Michael Cronin, representative of Eller Media stated tl,
<br />was an administrative permit, and there is no discretion.
<br />meet the 500-foot State requirement, MnDOT might have
<br />applications were submitted first, however, the City requi;
<br />standards, there would be no problem obtaining the pernvt
<br />Commissioner Johnson stated he was not opposed ta ��]
<br />550 feet spacing between Mounds View's and Sys��',�
<br />both signs for their financial benefit as well. He ��di��A��
<br />to the design theme, in that the City was �ally a s i �
<br />���� :
<br />structures. „�;,f ,-x;>
<br />Planning Associate Ericson stated ����
<br />next Planning Commission meeting,
<br />He advised that the Planning Co�r
<br />that could convey to th� Ciiy ��uY
<br />resolve �R���;;�:v�� issues ����.�� �r� �.�r�n
<br />City s�� ���i��� tf r��is co�.��r� �� a��,�:r.�A
<br />are nuii��s�����., ,�R�;x�xAy �+v�.ii��F���; 1����ti�p
<br />the Cod� �;;�a���� a�€,����f� �:c� 5�a.c�����, ���
<br />objectives. ��� $��,�r�� �r��{;�i�af,� c���e
<br />the Commissi��z ��r,°����.t� �3i3.> e,>s�,��; f.o
<br />, �<::
<br />�ioner Johnsoqt'
<br />amend the Co
<br />ent in the Cod
<br />�l signs in the f�
<br />�m,nnenie� that if the si�t�� ��� ����:
<br />r�
<br />�sx°� - ": .
<br />{. <����dgement in terms �� ���i��l
<br />����,; ,y�� ;° far in excess of iV(�►Y�� 1
<br />all �i���i �tpcz�, �ar�d;,even with only
<br />�e; vvoulrJ��� ��a-�:F�i� ��'see Sysco have
<br />���r, he was ����icerned with regard
<br />� �,c� �limi��te the monopole style
<br />;:;±f�;co appl��'�on was s�i�eduled for a public hearing at the
<br />D�� ,�>for�, thE�s?�ssue of d��tgn could be addressed at that time.
<br />Y...> .
<br />9sion r;c�F�� . A+;+clude a� ��h stipulation in Resolution 606-00
<br />:il their g�� ��°�� ��r �y'sco and the City to work together to
<br />of spac:�k��, ��.� �di�cated both the Sysco representatives and
<br />��lished i������r7 several different means. He explained there
<br />i.��; � variance, an interpretation of the Code, and amending
<br />���•�;, vaould allow both Sysco and the City to achieve their
<br />�'st� be added the resolution to make the Council aware that
<br />� � �solved.
<br />��<� ��c: ���ould prefer to see a variance between the two parties' signs,
<br />,� f���o�� for this. He explained that if they decrease the spacing
<br />o�00 feet, there would be nothing to prohibit Sysco from installing
<br />,�-;-.,
<br />�;��r��� ���rson Peter��i���stated although he is no fan of billboards, the City Ordinances allow them in
<br />"r.��a�, ���.���+txc�r�;; �d;t%iere is not a major difference between seven and eight signs, therefore, they
<br />�h����l�� ���������.>� �o find a means to make this work for both applicants. He stated a variance would
<br />�� ���Fa:� k� ;l ��� �, more appropriate approach than amending the Code, and the language of the
<br />OI'C�lYl�1��;e, is fairly clear in terms of the 1,000-foot spacing requirement, therefore, there is likely
<br />not much room for interpretation.
<br />Commissioner Miller requested clarification regarding the 1,000-foot spacing requirement as it
<br />pertains to the distance of the signs from the property line.
<br />
|